Are the US conservatives a threat to world peace?

[sirio11]

What do you think?

I think the neo-conservatives in the goverment are a real threat, but what about the US as a society? Because with the absence of a superpower to confront the US in its unilateral decisions and self interpretation of international affairs. The only hope is the American Society to do something about it, but do they really care? What do you think of the direction of the US Society and its impact in the future of world peace?

David

[Utah]

You are exactly wrong.

The U.S. is the only hope for world peace. We have elections in Afganistan, in Iraq, and with the Palestinians. We are closer to ending the Israeli conflict as any time in the last few decades. Libya are now working with the U.S. Why do you think this is?

Also the Americans already did something. 50 million of them voted to return Bush to office and they voted to strengthen the conservative's hold on power.

[cardcounter0]

You are exactly right, David.

And the above post is an excellent example of the almost total degree to which the American Public has been brainwashed.

Expecting the American People to do anything about the problem is foolish. They will all be standing in a soup line waiting for a handout, and still telling each other how great things are, and that progress is just around the corner.

[guller]

What world peace? How can the US conservatives be a threat to something that does not exist.

[Utah]

I am sorry. Did those elections not take place? Man, if they didnt I will admit that they brainwashed me pretty good.

"They will all be standing in a soup line waiting for a handout, and still telling each other how great things are, and that progress is just around the corner."

I am not sure how you are moving from security to prosperity, but I guess they are always tied.

The economy is humming, inflation is incredibly low, and unemployment is incredibly low. I guess if that is a recipe for soup kitchen lines then call me duped again.

[cardcounter0]

Sucessful Elections:
- Four Dead After U.S. Convoy Attacked - AP (Feb 13, 2005)
- Iraqi General Killed by Gunmen in Baghdad - AP (Feb 13, 2005)
- Car Bombing Outside Iraq Mosque Kills 13 - AP (Feb 12, 2005)
- Iraqi Insurgents Step Up Attacks After Elections - at The New York Times (Feb 12, 2005)
- Suicide Bomb Kills 18 in Iraq; Zarqawi Hunted - Reuters (Feb 12, 2005)
- Nineteen killed in Iraq violence - at BBC (Feb 12, 2005)
- Car Bomb Kills 17 Outside Iraqi Hospital - AP (Feb 12, 2005)

Economy Humming:
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is expected to tell Congress this week the U.S. economy is growing at a sustainable pace, even as the government reports retail sales probably fell for the first time in five months in January and factory production decelerated, economists said in advance of government reports this week.

Low Inflation:
``The economic data remain consistent with moderately above- trend growth and an acceleration in inflation,'' said Henry Willmore, chief U.S. economist at Barclays Capital in New York. ``Greenspan's testimony is likely to reinforce market expectations for additional tightening,'' or increases in interest rates, in the next few Fed meetings, he said.

Low Unemployment:
Drop in job-seekers push jobless rate to 3-yr low in US
WASHINGTON: US employers added just 146,000 jobs in January, the government said on Friday in an unexpectedly weak report on the labor market, while a drop in job-seekers pushed the unemployment rate to its lowest level in more than three years.

The gain in nonfarm payrolls in January came in below expectations for 190,000 new jobs, but was enough to return the nation’s employment to where it was before the 2001 recession began. It also erased the jobs lost during President George W. Bush’s first term.

The unemployment rate fell to 5.2 percent, the lowest level since a 5.0 percent reading in September 2001, but the drop was not all good news because it was largely due to an increase in the number of people who stopped looking for work.

KEEP DRINKIN' THE KOOL-AID! EVERYTHING IS FINE. NEVER BEEN BETTER! NOW MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO SEE HERE.

[cardcounter0]

Confidence dips: A separate report showed US consumer sentiment finished weaker in January. The University of Michigan’s confidence index for January was 95.5, down from December’s final reading of 97.1. “The labor markets are gradually improving, but consumers are still concerned about issues like energy prices and geopolitical news,” said Gary Thayer, chief economist at A.G. Edwards & Sons.
A report showed US inflation pressures rose in January as a result of faster growth in loans, but that was offset by slower growth in input prices.
“The index ... is clearly telling us that there is no downturn or easing of inflation in sight,” said Lakshman Achuthan, Managing Director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, which compiles the index. The Federal Reserve raised official interest rates this week for the sixth straight time, taking short-term borrowing costs to 2.5 percent, in a bid to head off inflation. —Reuters

Don't these people realize they had "wildly successful" elections in Iraq?

[fimbulwinter]

They are also a threat to santa, the easter bunny and all the prosperous, thriving communist states. I agree that we should probably worry about protecting farsical knee-jerk liberal catchphrases when we elect governments. great point.

gold star for you.

fim

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.fellowship911.com/

If like Lord of the Rings, the above short film is a spoof of Michael Moore, the Iraq War, and anti-Bush43 people in general. The guy who plays Gandalf is a John Kerry supporter.

Warning! Do not watch without a sense of humor!

[zaxx19]

Are you just a total and complete moron counter??

Ok, now I know you are.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Yes. An extreme threat.

Just listen to the canned apologetics and the rhetorical dodges they're using just on this thread alone. "Well, gee, there's not really any such thing as 'world peace' anyway, so it's not really a fair question ...". "Well, gee, our occupation governments have held occupation-controlled 'elections' in two of the countries we've invaded, so that means these places are now 'democracies'. You're not against 'democracy', now, are you comrade???". On and on and on, the canned propaganda-lines and the carefully-scripted dodges.

But the upshot is always the same:

Do not question The Leader.
Do not question The Party.
All is well.
We know best.
Dissent is treason.
Submit, obey, conform.
Or else.

Now where on earth have we heard that before?

You will notice, however, that the purveyors of this garbage are, to a man, NOT in Iraq, nor in Afghanistan (and they won't be in Iran, either, when that invasion commences). No, they're sitting comfortably behind their keyboards fighting their War Against Dissent, trying to shout down the troublemakers who dare question The Leader, secure in the knowledge that Fox News is the purveyor of all truth, that The Party is never wrong, and that only a traitor would possibly object to their ongoing rush to World War III. After all, they're going to civilize the world's inferior cultures, enlighten them with their great Aryan ways, and, in the end, the whole world will thank them for the glorious new age of Germanic peace and prosperity that is just around the corner, following right behind their glorious columns of tanks, bombers, and warships. At least, that's how it went the last time. I'm sure this time they'll get it right.


q/q

[TransientR]

Don't bother these guys with facts, CardCounter. When reality threatens to seep in, they just turn on Fox News, or listen to Rush, or read Ann Coulter and immediately feel better and confirmed in their smug and arrogantly held beliefs.

Frank

[fimbulwinter]

I agree, the use of force has never resulted in anything positive.

thanks for clearing that up.

fim

[QuadsOverQuads]

I don't understand how you got that from my post. Clearly, wars of aggression are a good thing, and military force is the only way to cure the inferior cultures of the world of their racial and cultural backwardness. And if the rest of America refuses to go along with this agenda, well, a good dose of brute force will teach us not to ask questions either.

God Bless America, These Colors Don't Run, Et Cetera.


q/q

(ps: if you really believe this, why are you still sitting at your computer and reading discussions about a card game, rather than signing your ass up to go and fight? Or are you one of those armchair hawks who loves a good war, just as long as someone else fights it for you?)

[Utah]

You really need to take your medicine.

"Or are you one of those armchair hawks who loves a good war, just as long as someone else fights it for you?)"

Maybe you didnt know this, but every single U.S. soldier is a volunteer. But, you might want to keep that on the QT because the facts really upset the ranting liberal whack jobs.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
every US soldier is a volunteer

[/ QUOTE ]

And, by the same token, every right-wing loon who spends his days ranting on the internet instead of enlisting to serve is not a volunteer.

Or, to put it another way :

You love to cheer the war footage on Fox News, but you'd really just rather see it from the comfort of your barcolounger. After all, those soldiers are all "volunteers" -- they knew what they were getting into when they signed up, so if they get killed in your wars, well, it's really just their own damned fault. You, on the other hand, were smarter than that. You get to stay nice and cozy and safe while cheering as their lives are put at risk for your political fantasies. And hey, you've done your part: you put a "support the troops" sticker on your car.

Worthless cowards, every damned one of you.


q/q

[cardcounter0]

Is this what you are talking about?

http://homepage.mac.com/leperous/.Pictures/oldman.jpg

[QuadsOverQuads]

Add a keyboard, an internet connection, and a library full of Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity books, and, yep, it's spot-on.


q/q

[cardcounter0]

If you notice that is an old AM radio, tuned to Rush Limbaugh.
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think?

I think the neo-conservatives in the goverment are a real threat, but what about the US as a society? Because with the absence of a superpower to confront the US in its unilateral decisions and self interpretation of international affairs. The only hope is the American Society to do something about it, but do they really care? What do you think of the direction of the US Society and its impact in the future of world peace?

David

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why, but for some reason, your post makes me want to be an [censored]. so here goes:

How is it that you can simultaneously entertain your notions of smug superiority vis a vis "American Society" (i.e., are those drooling morons ever going to be able to compose a coherent thought?) and still be unable to write a decent sentence or use proper capitalization. I'm sure it sounds like a nit-picking thing to point out, but have you really considered the enormity of your arrogance?

On the one hand:
The freely expressed votes of 100 million or so Americans (yeah, inevitable crack about the election of 2000. fortunately we had another election)

On the other hand:
"What do you think of the direction of the US Society and its impact in the future of world peace?"
Wow, i guess you are smarter than everyone else in the world. And since some of your colleagues have read George Orwell (or read the 1984 Cliff's Notes, or read someone else's stale regurgiation of his philosophy), their uninspired comparisons (although a comparison would use facts, not unsupported assertions. call them allusions) must be trenchant political commentary, not trite crap.

Oooo, and you can compare the US to Nazi Germany. How original, and totally devoid of historical or modern facts. Fortunately you were able to throw in some vaguely racist comments about Germanic violence. That's almost as good as an actual argument.

Here's a novel contention: everyone who supports a war should go fight in it. Are you in the Peace Corps, or the UN force in Bosnia, or doing anything else worthwhile? Hell, I'm sure you support the growing of wheat, are you a farmer? Or maybe you're saying that the only people entitled to a political opinion are soldiers? How about we just install a junta in Washington? Or maybe that's just a disingenuous argument you use to insult people who have the temerity to disagree with you? That seems most likely.

Wow, someone posted some headlines. Now we can really get off to the races. So you're telling me that thousands of people have died in a war? Now please don't think I'm minimizing all this loss of life, which is awful, but who's out of touch with the world now? Do you think it's better if 20,000 people die of the starvation imposed by Saddam's dictatorship or 20 people are killed by an off-target US bomb?

Holy crap, there's increasing inflation! And loss of jobs! There's only one interpretation: the economy is crashing and will never recover. Too bad we don't have a Democrat in office, because the Democrats have solved the problem of the business cycle and can prevent recessions.

I'm a conservative, but I'm not blind to the many failures of the Bush administration. In the future, you might have more success converting people by rationally pointing out those failures and suggesting workable alternatives, rather than offering level-headed, non-ad hominem lines such as:
"Worthless cowards, every damned one of you." -q/q
"Don't bother these guys with facts, CardCounter. When reality threatens to seep in, they just turn on Fox News, or listen to Rush, or read Ann Coulter and immediately feel better and confirmed in their smug and arrogantly held beliefs." -Frank
It's pretty obvious, but I'd like to draw attention to the stunning degree of hypocrisy in that quote from Frank. "Smug and arrogant." He's right in the middle of claiming that people who disagree with him must be brainwashed by the media to even be capable of such patently ridiculous behavior.

What's funny is that you all probably believe that American society is divided because of the increasing (supposedly) number of people with deep religious convictions. It has nothing to do with your vitriolic contempt for everyone you dislike.

Well, now that I've written my political screed of the month, I can get back to doing some work.

-Robert

[Utah]

I think lithium might be good for you. However, I highly recommend speaking to a doctor first to make sure you get the right dose.

[TimTimSalabim]

These people can hardly be called conservative, but since you use the term neo-, I have to agree. The conservatives of old wanted to defend the Constitution to the death, the neos are trampling all over it.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
I think lithium might be good for you. However, I highly recommend speaking to a doctor first to make sure you get the right dose.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure you can provide me with a nice glass of Kool-Aid to wash it all down with, too.


q/q

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
In the future, you might have more success converting people by rationally pointing out those failures and suggesting workable alternatives, rather than offering level-headed, non-ad hominem lines

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth makes you think anyone's trying to "convert" you? I cannot reason with people who have foresworn reason. I cannot debate with people who have foresworn logic and good faith. At this point, I consider any attempt at "dialogue" with the Bush Right to be a complete waste of time, and I simply see no point whatsoever in it. All I can do is call a spade a spade, and let the chips fall where they may. If that offends you, well, too bad.


q/q

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the future, you might have more success converting people by rationally pointing out those failures and suggesting workable alternatives, rather than offering level-headed, non-ad hominem lines

[/ QUOTE ]

What on earth makes you think anyone's trying to "convert" you? I cannot reason with people who have foresworn reason. I cannot debate with people who have foresworn logic and good faith. At this point, I consider any attempt at "dialogue" with the Bush Right to be a complete waste of time, and I simply see no point whatsoever in it. All I can do is call a spade a spade, and let the chips fall where they may.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

A dialogue with the Bush Right is a waste of time? But...but... but you just responded to my post. You started a dialogue! You're wasting time! (Note: even if you didn't think so, writing an entire post to quibble with that one trivial point is objectively a waste of time.)

And also, any post in the 2+2 politics forum is necessarily a waste of time.

[QuadsOverQuads]

Thank you for illustrating my point.


q/q

[fimbulwinter]

people like yourself are exactly why despots thrive.

fim

[QuadsOverQuads]

Maybe you ought to give some credit to this guy, too :

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein
December 20, 1983.


q/q

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]
What world peace? How can the US conservatives be a threat to something that does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What world peace? How can the US conservatives be a threat to something that does not exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ditto.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you understand by world peace? Because of your reply it seems to be a somewhat absolutist definition. If that's the case, then I can't argue with you. Obviously you both think the situation in 1944 or 1962 or 1990 or 1245 for the world was exactly the same.

[BCPVP]

Better that guy than this guy:
http://www.mindprod.com/images/khomeini.jpg
I wonder if it's worth bothering to find out whether you even know why we sided with Saddam instead of Khomeini...?

[lastchance]

By definition, world peace has to be sort of absolutist, doesn't it? Either there's world peace, or there isn't. So, we're never going to get it down exact.

Obviously, the line's blurry, but considering the superpower (America) is fighting a prolonged war that seems to be escalating (war on terror), the world isn't at peace, is it?

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't know why, but for some reason, your post makes me want to be an [censored]. so here goes:
-Robert

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you succeeded.

[fimbulwinter]

please dont bother quadsoverquads with the nuances of historical accuracy or cogent logic, he's much too grandiose for such trifles.

fim

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Better that guy than this guy:

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to worry, your party was arming Iran, too. Or do I need to remind you about this guy? :

http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/north/north.jpg


q/q

[adios]

Hilarious given the state of affairs in the Middle East and what's happened since Reagan took office. History has shown that the threats to world peace are the appeasers like John Kerry and his ilk.

[Utah]

Did you ever work directly for Donald Rumsfeld? If not, how dare you criticize him you worthless armchair coward.

[rjduo1]

counter is your typical self hating american liberal...you can't talk to them you just have to laugh at them with their phony intelligence. they believe in this make believe utopia that doesn't exist and never will...go on counter keep hating you and your kind just keep exposing what your all really about..and thats why you will be out of power for along time..

[bobman0330]

Wow, you guys really love the one-liners. If I were a second-grader, I'd be totally crushed by your retorts.

[Kaz The Original]

Yes.

[BCPVP]

Indeed we did. And there was a reason for that to. But I'm not sure about Mr. Ghost you posted there. I don't remember him...

[QuadsOverQuads]

Well, that was a link to a photo of Oliver North. It worked when I posted it last night, but apparantly no more. Oh well. You get the point, anyway.


q/q

[Warchant88]

This thread is so dumb. If you are going to accuse one side, you have to look at your own side first.

[zaxx19]

Ya, we get the point that the US was perpetuating a war to exhaust both sides...both of which were unsavory and not really ever friends of ours.

How silly of the US....who could imagine a world power would act so hypocritically/stealthily.

[BCPVP]

It always amuses me when liberals criticize the U.S. (mainly Reagan) for siding with Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war because their criticism is especially lacking for Mr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt who allied with a man responsible for 20-40 million deaths to stop a man responsible for about 15-21 million deaths. Always remember, just because we allied with a country, doesn't mean that country is our friend. Notice how once Iraq attacked another country besides Iran, all bets were off; just as once WWII was over, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were enemies.
If that's too difficult, look at it this way. I'm a Packers fan. It's almost a requirement in Wisconsin. But in the Super Bowl, I was pulling for the Eagles. Even though I hate the Eagles, I hate the Patriots more. Understand?

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you ought to give some credit to this guy, too :

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein
December 20, 1983.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, that was the day I was born. Crazy.

[jaxmike]

No, that would be the American and European liberals. As well as terrorists of all sorts, and religious fanatics.

[Kaz The Original]

Cause you know those European liberals are starting so many wars.

By religious fanatics, do you include G.W.B.?

[jaxmike]

Lets make this clear right now. Just about the only way to peace, unfortunately, is through war. Theoretically its possible to have a meeting of the minds and have peace declared, has this happened? I accuse the Liberals of being a threat to peace because of their absurd and misguided attempts at appeasement. Appeasement is exactly how successful?

Before you preach all high and mighty about ideals, please show me some semblace of prescedent that they indeed work... Because you cannot, I claim that your devotion to a silly belief that people can talk through their problems is unintelligent at best. Humans have always been at war with each other.

My reference to fanatical religions was not directed at any one person. To claim that GWB is a fanatic is absurd. I would appreciate some examples or even just rational explanation of your ideas instead of name calling. For a man that simply claims God is an influence on his life to be compared to a fanatic is a leap that any sane person cannot make.

My assertion is that those who are so misguided by a "religion" that is clearly being misinterpreted are fanatics. I would never say that any one religion is to blame, or solely the source, of fanatics. However, one has recently grabbed the headlines. I do believe that the war on terror is in no way a war on Islam. I believe that terror is being brought about by people of all races and almost all religions. Terrorism is one of the effects of religion taken to a fanatical stage.

[renodoc]

eom

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
. Because you cannot, I claim that your devotion to a silly belief that people can talk through their problems is unintelligent at best. Humans have always been at war with each other.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know people have always been at war through history. So what? Since the Eden and paradise is not possible then we should be at a perpetual World War II for example?

The more war, the better? Exactly how much "war" is enough do you think. I'm guessing you understand the situation right now is not the same as in 1943 for example.

"People can't talk", I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. You claim that somebody who says Bush is a religious fanatic is out of his mind, and I agree with you, I think he's not a fanatic, but you're stament that people can't talk is equally outreageous. With all the evidence trhough history about "talking", your stament is just pretty stupid.

David

[jaxmike]

my only point in that line of discourse was that appeasement doesn't work, and it never has. i may not have worded it right, but i digress.

also, I am not encouraging war, but i am saying that no one should be shocked if thats what it comes to.

[Felix_Nietsche]

They will try but be defeated in the USA.

In Europe they will rule for a 1000 years leaving them a shadow of their former greatness...

[Kaz The Original]

"Just about the only way to peace, is through war." This is incorrect, albeit a common misconception, no doubt a byproduct of non stop rememberance day parades. Have we ever had a meetings of the minds and peace declared? The cuban missile crisis comes to mind. In fact, the entire America vs The U.S.S.R. thing comes to mind. Two nations, fundamentally, economically and ideologically opposing the other managed to negotiate their ways out of wars.

India managed to seperate from the British without war. Canada became fully independent (except in name) from England without war. Nations settle differences constantly these days without war. Peace is the natural state of things, war disrupts it. Like any type of violence, like a fire, it spreads, but enough peace will put out war.

Yes, being able to defend your country is essential to any nations success. But peace is not the aftermath of war, not the result of war. Peace is our natural state.

[natedogg]

When people start talking about the "natural state of things" that's when I know I'm hearing pure ideology with nothing to do with facts.

natedogg

[Kaz The Original]

Not ideology friend, philosophy. Or perhaps there is no real distinction between the two.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
my only point in that line of discourse was that appeasement doesn't work

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like Hitler accusing his opponents of wanting to "appease" Poland. It's so Alice-through-the-looking-glass that one wonders where to even begin addressing it.

For the record: George W. Bush and his fellow criminals are the aggressors here. They lied the nation into a war of international aggression against Iraq, and they are in the process of ginning up another tapestry of lies to start wars of aggression against Iran and Syria. It is Republicans who are demanding "appeasement" here, and they've gotten it for FAR too long. It's time they got a bare-knuckle fight instead.


q/q

[jaxmike]

ROFLMAO!

Fact, the United States and Iraq were in a state of war from the first "Gulf War"

Fact, there was a cease fire signed, but not peace agreement. Sadam's regime CLEARLY failed to meet the requirements of the cease fire.

Fact, there was a continuation of hostilities, not a declaration of a new war with Iraq in the currect offensive there.

Nothing illegal was done on the part of the US in regards to continuing the war against Iraq. There were no "lies" told. If there were it was the entire UN and almost every intelligence agency telling them to their superiors.

To think that the US is criminal clearly shows a total lack of knowledge about international law and the laws of war.

Your reference to Hitler is totally unexpected and i believe irrelevant. If you are trying to equate me or GWB to Hitler I have some news for you, you have been brainwashed. You are too far gone, I pitty you.

[jaxmike]

you know, the US and USSR didnt come to "blows" in settling their dispute. but they didnt come to common agreement either. the USSR gave in, and collapsed. they lost a war, a war of a different sort, a cold war, but a war none the less.

i would say when it comes to man, and this is sad and cynical, but i think war is the natural state, peace disrupts it.

[jaxmike]

either way, facts are ignored.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing illegal was done on the part of the US in regards to continuing the war against Iraq. There were no "lies" told. If there were it was the entire UN and almost every intelligence agency telling them to their superiors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Enjoy that Kool-Aid, jax.


q/q

[jaxmike]

exactly the response i expected. good for you.

[jaxmike]

sorry for saving the world three times.

[CORed]

I think the current neo-colonial policy will likely result in the U.S. not being the only super-power for long. The more the rest of te world pereives us as a threat, the more they will arm. China and the EU certainly have the population and the eoconomic strength to compete with us militarily if they choose to. China is already building up it's military. Europe had been accustomed to letting the U. S. carry most of its defense burden. If they perceive us as a threat rather than an ally, that will change. Russia could be a super power again if they get their act together ecnomically. Bush is perceived in much of the world, not without some justification as a madman. It could soon be true that "you're either with us, or against us" and every one will be against us.

[Il_Mostro]

Also, don't forget the weapon the world has against the US: the US need to borrow money to support it self. A lot of the treasury bills are bought by China and Japan.

What will happen if the world starts seing the US as a threat?
Or if the world decides to stop throwing good money after bad?
Or if the world decides it's better to let the dollar sink at their will instead of uncontrolled?

[Felix_Nietsche]

I think the current neo-colonial policy will likely result in the U.S. not being the only super-power for long. The more the rest of te world pereives us as a threat, the more they will arm. China and the EU certainly have the population and the eoconomic strength to compete with us militarily if they choose to.
*******************************************
Europe arm themselves!?
Please....that can't even properly fund their pension systems properly.
Their pro-labor laws (translation = anti-business laws) are killing them economically.
As for China they have been showing some impressive economic growth. But most economies go through boom and bust cycles. When China hits their first bust cycle people will ask what went wrong with China. I think it is a little pre-mature to crown China the next economic super-power...


"China is already building up it's military."
********************************************
True. I wonder if a Taiwan-China showdown is coming. If it does, I hope Taiwan kicks their a$$. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


"Europe had been accustomed to letting the U. S. carry most of its defense burden. If they perceive us as a threat rather than an ally, that will change."
*****************************************
Europe build up their military!?
There is a greater chance of Chirac giving up his mistresses. /images/graemlins/smile.gif


"Russia could be a super power again if they get their act together ecnomically."
**********************************************
They could be. But Putin is killing the goose that laid the golden egg.
E.g. He stole Yukos Oil Company from the richest man in Russia. This has had achilling affect of Russia's fledgling capitalist economy...


"Bush is perceived in much of the world, not without some justification as a madman."
************************************************
Although I have my disagreements with Bush43, I find him more sane than 95% of the world's leaders. It seems the defintion of being a sane leader is to be 'popular' with the rest of the world. It is nice to have approval and popularity but not at the expense of sacrificing the self interests of the USA.


"It could soon be true that "you're either with us, or against us" and every one will be against us."
************************************************
Oooooooooohhhhhh! I'm so scared. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
The USA needs to protect their self-interest just like every other country in the world.
If the rest of the world does not like this, then I won't lose any sleep at night...

[Felix_Nietsche]

I would love the USA govt to stop borrowing money.
Then Americans could starve the liberal government spending programs and the US economy would kick into 5th gear!

The USA is the best place to invest money. Everyone in the world knows this. If the rest of the world stopped investing in the USA, they would hurt themselves economically... So in trying to hurt the USA, countries will hurt themselves...

Like it our not, we have a global economy.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Although I have my disagreements with Bush43, I find him more sane than 95% of the world's leaders.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not saying much. I don't really think Bush is a madman, and equating him with Hitler (as some in the far left do) is silly, but I think he's in way over his head, and that his Iraq venture was unnecessary and has been incompetently run.

[Felix_Nietsche]

He is correct.
Legally the 2nd war in Iraq is just a continuation of the first war with Iraq. By treaty Iraq did not meet the cease-fire requirements, so the USA had a legal right to attack Iraq.

Going to the UN was just a formality to show undeserved respect to the UN.

[Voltorb]

If you don't believe the neo-conservatives are a threat to world peace, Google PNAC, read it, and then notice the signatures on the bottom.

I do not believe that America can fight and win simultaneous wars in different theatres, but if the neocons have there way, this is exactly what will be attempted. Perhaps this is the last great push before the great Pax Americana enters and the world enjoys unlimited peace and prosperity for the rest of eternity, but I doubt it.

More than likely we are creating more and more enemies with our misguided attempts to stabilize and bring freedom to other nations. If this continues, we will be the most hated nation on the face of the planet, though we may have already achieved this dubious honor.

WWIII, this time America plays the role of Germany!

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Legally the 2nd war in Iraq is just a continuation of the first war with Iraq. By treaty Iraq did not meet the cease-fire requirements, so the USA had a legal right to attack Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

An interesting theory. But the first gulf war was a UN security council action, and the peace treaty was with the UN, so it seems a little shaky to claim that we had a right to attack unilaterally on that basis. If our postion was that Sadaam's WMD and association with terrorists constituted an iminent threat to our security, and we intended to invade with or without UN approval, we would have been better off not to ask the UN. Asking the UN and then going ahead without their approval just made us look like a rogue state.

Of course, that still wouldn't have altered the fact that Sadaam didn't actually have WMD and that his connection to Al Queda, if any, was tenuous. However, we could certainly claim (as we have) that we acted on the basis bad intelligence (although I think it would be more correct to say that we acted because of a lack of intelligence on the part of our president).

[BCPVP]

Might need to loosen the tinfoil hat dude. It sounds like oxygen isn't getting up there properly.

I've read much of the essay I think you're eluding to. Rebuilding America's Defenses, I believe. I agree with a lot of it, such as repositioning troops now that we're out of the Cold War as well as updating our weapon systems.

You may not feel that America can fight two different wars, but I beg to differ. In fact, that has been what we required of the military; that they could handle two full-blown wars and a hotspot or two. If we can't, that says that our military is going soft and needs to undergo some changes. Clinton snipping the balls from the military doesn't help any either.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
But the first gulf war was a UN security council action, and the peace treaty was with the UN, so it seems a little shaky to claim that we had a right to attack unilaterally on that basis.

[/ QUOTE ]
I love the word "unilaterally" because many who use it, use it incorrectly. You would have to note that the forces patroling the No-Fly zones are not U.N. forces. They're U.S. and British forces. Who would enforce a resumption of hostilites with Iraq if the U.N. authorized it if the U.S. didn't take part?

[ QUOTE ]
If our postion was that Sadaam's WMD and association with terrorists constituted an iminent threat to our security, and we intended to invade with or without UN approval, we would have been better off not to ask the UN. Asking the UN and then going ahead without their approval just made us look like a rogue state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why is it that the humanitarian reason is often left out or belittled? If you eliminate the other two reasons, then Gulf War II is very similar to the attacks against Yugoslavia. Throw in those other two reasons, which seemed valid at the time (connections to al-Qaeda still exist) and Saddams intent to resume creating WMDs as noted in the Deulfer Report, and you have a few good reasons to resume hostilities.

I do, however, like that the President made the effort to go to the U.N. and get their approval because doing so without even bothering would look more arrogant, IMO, than just doing it without talking with anyone. Better we at least make an effort than just do what we want, UN be damned.

I would love to hear the U.N.'s explanation for why the Kurds had to live under such gross abuses that resemble parts of the Holocaust. If any of you get a chance, thumb through the book "Hell is Over" to get an insider's view to the horror that Saddam inflicted.

[BadBoyBenny]

Come on. All that would be just as bad for everyone else as it would for us.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
I do, however, like that the President made the effort to go to the U.N. and get their approval because doing so without even bothering would look more arrogant, IMO, than just doing it without talking with anyone. Better we at least make an effort than just do what we want, UN be damned.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this for real?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The USA is the best place to invest money. Everyone in the world knows this. If the rest of the world stopped investing in the USA, they would hurt themselves economically... So in trying to hurt the USA, countries will hurt themselves...

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that if the rest of the world starts seeing the US as a real threat they would, sooner or later, stop lending money to you.
I belive India recently sold (or planned to sell, I have not followed it closely) some 120 billion dollars worth of treasruy bills.
I also remember a statement by some US official that if some country starts to try to get cash for its treasury bills that would be considered an act of war. Don't know if it's true or not, I have not seen any official papers on it.

This may happen anyway, if enough governments and banks decide it's better do let go of the dollar and take the calculated hit than to let the dollar collapse without any aid.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
"It could soon be true that "you're either with us, or against us" and every one will be against us."
************************************************
Oooooooooohhhhhh! I'm so scared.
The USA needs to protect their self-interest just like every other country in the world.
If the rest of the world does not like this, then I won't lose any sleep at night...

[/ QUOTE ]
Again. If this would mean they stop lending you money, you probably should be scared.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
He is correct.
Legally the 2nd war in Iraq is just a continuation of the first war with Iraq. By treaty Iraq did not meet the cease-fire requirements, so the USA had a legal right to attack Iraq.

Going to the UN was just a formality to show undeserved respect to the UN.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Any ceasefire breaches and any action to be taken as a result of them were to be decided by the UN Security Council, not any individual nation that saw fit. Furthermore, the resolution authorising the original war did not mandate any invasion of Iraq under any circumstances.

I've had this argument a thousand times before and this is as far as I'll go with it this time. Just so you know.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
But the first gulf war was a UN security council action, and the peace treaty was with the UN

[/ QUOTE ]

Peace treaty? What peace treaty? Saying things like this that are COMPLETELY wrong doesn't strengthen your argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Asking the UN and then going ahead without their approval just made us look like a rogue state.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without their approval? Hmmm... I will have to check on the facts on this one too. I am pretty sure that you are totally making this up too.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that still wouldn't have altered the fact that Sadaam didn't actually have WMD

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam had WMD's. There is no denying that fact. He USED THEM, on HIS OWN PEOPLE!

[ QUOTE ]
that we acted on the basis bad intelligence (although I think it would be more correct to say that we acted because of a lack of intelligence on the part of our president)

[/ QUOTE ]

So, because basically every intelligence agency IN THE WORLD agreed that Saddam had WMD's, Bush displayed a lack of intelligence? Nonsense.

[jaxmike]

Sure buddy. Keep smoking what you are smoking.

[jaxmike]

any damage done to the US in this course of action would do 10x the damage to the other countries in the world. please read up and understand just how big and how important the US economy is to the world. the US would make it through, many other nations......

[nicky g]

"Sure buddy. Keep smoking what you are smoking"

Try making a proper argument instead of your endless unfunny unoriginal jibes. Clearly you can't. What I wrote is true. The monitoring of Iraq's compliance and any decisions about action to be taken was to be taken by the security council.

[nicky g]

"Peace treaty? What peace treaty? Saying things like this that are COMPLETELY wrong doesn't strengthen your argument."

Clearly he means the ceasefire agreement. Being a nit doesn;t help your argument, it just makes you look like a prick.

[jaxmike]

you have no clue what you are talking about if you think i am nitting. there is a HUGE difference between a cease fire and a peace treaty.

acting like you know what you are talking about makes you look like a prick son.

[nicky g]

"you have no clue what you are talking about if you think i am nitting. there is a HUGE difference between a cease fire and a peace treaty."

I realise there is a difference. My point is if you had half a brain, which is in severe doubt, you would realise what he meant.

[jaxmike]

and under just about every measure they failed to comply. after over a dozen resolutions that went unheeded by the Iraqi government, the cease fire was broken due to non compliance. what did the security council say about the US continuing hostilities against Iraq?

[jaxmike]

so, i am supposed to be able to read minds? why when he clearly wrote "peace treaty" am I supposed to know he MEANT "cease fire"

are you a woman? i am just curious, not meant to be an insult, but women expect me to be able to do this too, so i wondered.

[nicky g]

"and under just about every measure they failed to comply. after over a dozen resolutions that went unheeded by the Iraqi government, the cease fire was broken due to non compliance."

Irrelevant. It was not only up to the Security Council to recognise breaches, but to decide upon action.

"what did the security council say about the US continuing hostilities against Iraq? "

It didn;t have to say anything. By your argument China could nuke the US and it would be legal because China would veto any condemnation. You have no understanding of how the UN works.

[nicky g]

"so, i am supposed to be able to read minds? why when he clearly wrote "peace treaty" am I supposed to know he MEANT "cease fire""

I'm not going to get into a ten page argument about who meant what a la the Ann Coulter thread. You're either trying to score points rather than further the argument by pointing out he used the wrong term, or you're genuinely dumb. Either way there's no need to harp on about this any more.

No, I am a man.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
It didn;t have to say anything. By your argument China could nuke the US and it would be legal because China would veto any condemnation. You have no understanding of how the UN works.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually, i am quite sure i do. and from what i have seen lately, its clear it DOES NOT WORK.

[ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant. It was not only up to the Security Council to recognise breaches, but to decide upon action.

[/ QUOTE ]

and what did they decide on?

[nicky g]

"and what did they decide on? "

In their last resolution before the invasion, they decided to continue to monitor the situation before deciding on further action.

[jaxmike]

America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area."


Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace." Saddam Hussein is the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, continues to support terrorism, and poses a clear and ongoing threat to the United States and the region. He has shown no compunction about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran. His willingness to use them in the past illustrates the threat he poses should he gain access to more devastating WMD and the means to convey them to his enemies.



game, set, match.. as some would say. the UN did indeed authorize the continuation of hostilities in iraq whether they like it or not.....

either way, the US could have gone to war on its own. the UN cannot stop us, or tell us what to do.

[Voltorb]

My tin foil hat is not too tight, thanks for your concern though.

My comments regarding PNAC may be a bit overblown, but you cannot doubt that the think-tank has a rather aggressive strategy regarding America's role in the new century.

The goal of this administration is empire building. Not the traditional form of empire, but a more subtle empire. When Bush said "You're either with us, or you're against." this is exactly what he meant. You either serve America and American corporate interests, or if you don't, you soon will.

Consider Thomas Barnett and his analysis of the world as consisting of a functioning core (i.e. the countries who are in line with American intersests) and the non-functioning rest of the world ( Thomas P. M. Barnett (http://thomaspmbarnett.com/) ). He basically echoes the neocon's targeting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea (The Axis of Evil) when he speaks of bringing the rest of the world into the functioning core. I seriously doubt that this can be done in an entirely peaceful manner.

I realize my comments about America playing the role of Germany in WWIII were a bit crazy, but this was meant more as a warning against imperialistic ambitions. The cost, no matter how good our intentions, will be far too high. Most likely, the entire world will end up much worse than before we started.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Saddam had WMD's. There is no denying that fact. He USED THEM, on HIS OWN PEOPLE!

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadaam had chemical weapons before the first gulf war. He used them on the Kurds and on Iranian troops. He played a lot of cat and mouse games with UN inspectors, apparently trying to avoid giving them up. I will be honest. I was quite surprised that we didn't find them after we invaded, especially after we claimed to know exactly what he had and where he was hiding them during Powell's infamous dog and pony show at the UN. If he still had them when we cited them as our primary reason for invading, he did one hell of a job of hiding them, because we have yet to find them. OK, we found 2, count'em, 2 old chemical artillery shells. I'm sure glad we neutralized that threat. I will concede that Sadaam was an all around bad guy, and a little more dangerous than your average third world thug, because the oil money gave him a lot more capacity for mischief, but he was a threat we had already done a pretty good job of neutralizing and containing.

Although I think the Iraqi venture was unnecessary, what I really fault Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al for is their utter failure to understand what we were getting into. I knew when we started, that getting rid of Sadaam was the easy part, and occupying Iran would be the hard part. I also was concerned that invading him might push him into using his WMD, either against our troops, or against Israel. Fortunately, he apparently had none to use. We went in with a force adequate for the easy part, but not for the hard part. Rummy said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." This is would be a reasonable statement if the war is essential to national survival. When objectives of the war are desirable, but not essential, and your army is inadequate to achieve those objectives, then, if you have a lick of sense you don't go to war, or if you're determined to go to war, you build up your army until it is adequate. It amazes me that so many conservatives are so caught up in their ideology that they don't realize we have a bumbling incompetent for a president. Then again, there are a lot of Democrats who still think Jimmy Carter was a good president.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is if you had half a brain, which is in severe doubt, you would realise what he meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he does have half a brain, and he borrowed the other half from Rush Limbaugh. I have yet to see him post anything that doesn't pretty much paraphrase Rush. I'm not sure he has any thoughts of his own.

He has a point that the UN cease fire agreement wasn't really a peace treaty. That was the phrasing from the post I was replying to. I do know the difference, but got a little sloppy. It doesn't invalidate the point that if your rationale for going to war is the violation of the peace agreement with the UN, then it is the UN's decision whether the violation is serious enough to go to war. If your rationale for going to war is that Sadaam and his supposed WMD's are an imminent threat to the security of the U. S., then you don't need and shouldn't ask for the UN's approval.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
My point is that if the rest of the world starts seeing the US as a real threat they would, sooner or later, stop lending money to you.

This may happen anyway, if enough governments and banks decide it's better do let go of the dollar and take the calculated hit than to let the dollar collapse without any aid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't see that happening Mostro, looks like economical suicide.

Is there a way to have some kind of international order? Some kind of international law that even the US respect it?

Or the world has to deal with the international law impossed by the US and try to get the best of it.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"Being a nit(1) doesn;t help your argument, it just makes you look like a prick(2)."
...if you had half a brain(3), which is in severe doubt(4)"
"...or you're genuinely dumb(5)."
***********************************************
Nicky G. you are clearly unable to make a civil post without using an adhominem attack.
You personal attacks are evidence that wild emotion rules your mind rather than reason.....

When you proved wrong on a point, your tactic becomes:
If you think ________ then you must be ________ ("dumb", "thick". etc...)

You have become incredibly predictable... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cpt Spaulding]

[ QUOTE ]
You are exactly right, David.

And the above post is an excellent example of the almost total degree to which the American Public has been brainwashed.

Expecting the American People to do anything about the problem is foolish. They will all be standing in a soup line waiting for a handout, and still telling each other how great things are, and that progress is just around the corner.

[/ QUOTE ]

The American public is brainwashed???? Simply because people disagree with you doesn't make them brainwashed. I am curious what your point was in your post other than to make a childish attack on Americans. I do realize that there are some real idiots out there, but this doesn't stop at our borders. Stupidity runs amuck all over the planet. If you haven't caught that already you are just as dumb as you say we are.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see that happening Mostro, looks like economical suicide.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't bet my life on that. Granted, the cost for the world to do it would be high indeed, but maybe those cost are preferable than the higher cost of leaving everything as it is.
One thing I see that may provoce this into happening is rising oil prices, making the US trade imbalance higher and higher, making the dollar sinking further and further. Since the US needed som 80% of the combined world savings to keep its economy floating a while ago, it's not that far until you guys need some 103% or something...

Now, I'm not an economist, I just speculate a bit...

[Voltorb]

When the housing bubble finally bursts, there will be nothing to save us. The economic future of America is very dim indeed. And by the way Felix, liberal social programs are not driving up the U.S. debt nearly as much as misguided imperialistic adventures and overspending on defense.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
From our data we have identified Federal Government Debt Report debt of $7 Trillion, the State & Local Government Report debt of $1.6 Trillion, plus $28.9 Trillion private (household, business and financial sector) debt from America's Total Debt Report.

These sum to $37 Trillion, or $129,513 per capita. This sum does not include the federal government's un-funded contingent liabilities for social security/Medicare estimated at $44 trillion, plus additional amounts for unknown (?) contingencies listed below.)

[/ QUOTE ]
link (http://mwhodges.home.att.net/nat-debt/debt-nat-a.htm#summary)

[Voltorb]

See, if they had just put all that social security money in a lock box like Al Gore suggested, we wouldn't have to worry about all that social security debt! Seriously though, we may owe more money to future social security, but what causes our debt to grow (continuing budget deficits) is mostly due to military overspending. I admit I could be wrong on this point, however. At least, if the government wanted to cut back, this would be a good place to start. After doing away with the DEA and the drug war that is.

[nicky g]

"You have become incredibly predictable"

Unlike you with your endless repetition of "game set match", "don;t bother them with facts and logic", ".0000001%"* 3bn etc, your complete refusal to taken on baord other people's points (especially wacki's in the gloibal warming thread), your endles nitiness and point scoring etc etc. You are jerks and you argue like jerks, especially jaxmike with his deliberate redefining of "greenhouse gases" so he could make a completely dishonest and spurious point.

Notice I very rarely insult the likes of adios or Utah, with whom I disagree on virtually everything, who are infinitely more elegant and effective debaters than you or jaxmike.

[nicky g]

"America has permission to act through existing U.N. Security Council resolutions. The Security Council has passed nearly 60 resolutions on Iraq and Kuwait since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990."

None of them authorising invasion of Iraq. If the number of security resolutions passed were the test, any country that fancied it would be quite legally justified in invading Israel.

"The most relevant to this issue is Resolution 678, passed on November 29, 1990. It authorizes "member states co-operating with the Government of Kuwait...to use all necessary means" to (1) implement Security Council Resolution 660 and other resolutions calling for the end of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait and withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwaiti territory and (2) "restore international peace and security in the area.""

Subsequent to 678, 687 imposed a formal ceasefire on behalf of the security council and then mandated the security council, not individual nations, to monitor further developments. Individual nations aren't allowed to simply take decisions by themselves on behalf of the council. All of the subsequent resolutions were clear in not authorising force to remove Hussein. If that weren't the case, Bush and Blair would never have bothered to try to get another resolution in the first place.

"Saddam Hussein is the single greatest threat to stability in the Middle East. He started two wars in the region, continues to support terrorism, and poses a clear and ongoing threat to the United States and the region. He has shown no compunction about using chemical weapons, either against his own people or during the war with Iran. His willingness to use them in the past illustrates the threat he poses should he gain access to more devastating WMD and the means to convey them to his enemies."

Perhaps I am being nitty myself, but why is this in the present tense when Saddam was deposed two years ago? It reads like you've nicked it from somewhere else. mostly nonsense; at the peak of his poweres Saddam wa a threat; in 2003 he was largely toothless.

[ QUOTE ]
"Article 1 of the U.N. Charter states that the paramount purposes of the organization are to "maintain international peace and security," "take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace," and suppress "acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace."

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't take article one by itself out of context. The rest of the charter makes it very clear that the situations under which warfare are allowed are: a. Direct self-defence against an invasion or imminent invasion; b. with the express permission of the security council.


"game, set, match.. "

This is so incredibly weak. What are you, fifteen?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
who are infinitely more elegant and effective debaters than you or jaxmike

[/ QUOTE ]

More ad hominem attacks...game, set and match /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[nicky g]

Actually, I meant to write eloquent. But I'm sure their ties are immaculately knotted as well.

[Felix_Nietsche]

"You are jerks and you argue like jerks,"
******************************************
Once again you have proven my point.


"Notice I very rarely insult the likes of adios or Utah,"
********************************************
So you counter argument is because you are SOMETIMES civil to SOME people then therefore you are civil.... Hmmmmmm...

I find it amusing you used the the wording, "RARELY INSULT".
Perhaps one day you will RARELY INSULT me. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nicky g]

"So you counter argument is because you are SOMETIMES civil to SOME people then therefore you are civil.... "

I am generally civil to people who argue properly rather than constantly lauding their own skills and awarding themselves "victory" like spoiled children. At least I'm still willing to debate with you.

"I find it amusing you used the the wording, "RARELY INSULT". "

Yah, well it is fair to say that I have lost my temper at some point with just about everyone here. That's a shame and a failing.

I'm going to stop on this point now is this is becoming our own public bitchslap fight, something I castigated Cyrus and M for just yesterday. I will try to be more civil.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to stop on this point now is this is becoming our own public bitchslap fight, something I castigated Cyrus and M for just yesterday. I will try to be more civil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just wait Nicky, and think: you could be arguing like this (with minor variations) for the next six years /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[CHiPS]

Wow its amaizing how polarized the country is on this topic. I believe there are intelligent and moral people on both sides of this issue. But I do support the President's Decisions and the troops for doing an outstanding job overall. I think the real question here is whether an agressive play vs Iraq reduces global terrorism or makes it worse. In Poker terms I'd have to admit that I am not 100% sure what the outcome will be, but I'd have to say its more likely to be a good solution to a terrorist problem than a cause. Not being agressive and letting that whole region breed terrorism seems to be the wrong move. It would be like letting an opponent have a free card on the turn. Going in strong has the potential for things to boil over, but it also has the potential to clear out a lot of terrorism. The bet is not 100% clear, but bets rarely are. Iraq was like making a big raise trying to get your opponent to fold. So here's a question - how many people who are FOR the Iraq war are No Limit Players ? How many against the Iraq war prefer limit poker ?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Not being agressive and letting that whole region breed terrorism seems to be the wrong move.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say "the whole region", just how many countries are you including in that? What connection did each of them have to the 9/11 attacks?

Or are you simply declaring that all the nations of the whole "Islamic world" are really just one great big entity that should be attacked as a whole?


q/q

[Voltorb]

The Bush administration clearly got a bad read on their opponent. Never bluff somebody who clearly won't lay their hand down.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
any damage done to the US in this course of action would do 10x the damage

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I don't think you are correct. Since I belive the result for the US economy would (will) be a complete meltdown there is no way for 10x the damage anywhere else. Unless you guys start dropping nukes left and right.

[ QUOTE ]
the US would make it through, many other nations

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean like the nations who actually manufacture things that you buy for you borrowed money?

[ QUOTE ]
please read up

[/ QUOTE ]
I've done a lot of reading, thank you. Why do you constantly assume I have not?
I have assumed you have not in the area of alternative energy since you showed such lack of understanding (for example claiming energy sources that are not sources at all).

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
The Bush administration clearly got a bad read on their opponent. Never bluff somebody who clearly won't lay their hand down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many Iraqis are eager for democracy, as shown by the huge voter turnout (despite death threats by the extremists). The die-hard religious fanatics and ex-Saddamites aren't going to lay their hands down, even facing disaster, but there are dead-enders and death-wishers in every country. I think the insurgency is going to slowly run out of steam, with the stream of attacks eventually dwindling to a trickle, especially as various factions get a say in the governance of the country.

I think it was Saddam who misread the situation twice, thinking that maybe Bush43 (and his father) wouldn't invade. Saddam thought there was a chance Bush wouldn't invade--heh--what the hell was he thinking, especially this time around? He kept spitting into the wind though, and is now paying the price.

[Voltorb]

Saddamites--pun intended? lol

[MMMMMM]

I was not using it as a pun, as I have seen it used on various occasions as a covenient way to denote the hard-core Baathist loyalists to Saddam's regime. But yes, it probably was orginally invented as a pun--though not by me.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
When you say "the whole region", just how many countries are you including in that? What connection did each of them have to the 9/11 attacks?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why should our pursuit of terrorism stop only with those responsible for 9/11? Why shouldn't we be after all terrorists?

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should our pursuit of terrorism stop only with those responsible for 9/11? Why shouldn't we be after all terrorists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you want to go after a whole lot of people who, by your own admission, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Let's go with that. How many nations? Let's have a list.

And when you're done with that list, let's look at the military and social reality for a minute, because you're asking America's military to fight all these battles for you, and you're asking America's citizens to pay the bill via our taxes.

Iraq alone is already approaching $300 billion, and counting. That's over $1000 for every man, woman and child in America. And that was for a nation that was already under sanctions for a decade, and which had only a shell of a military. Iran is a whole different ballgame. They have an army, and they have allies. Syria? They've just declared a "united front" with Iran -- an attack on one is an attack on both. And what of Russia and China? Do you honestly think they're just going to sit back and watch the U.S. military invade and occupy the entire middle east? They have strategic interests there too. They can pursue those any number of ways, all of them bad for this country and our military.

This isn't just an international version of fantasy football. Support for Bush and his cronies is putting real American kids into real harm's way, and saddling this whole country with generations' worth of debt. And yet all I hear from the Bush crowd is "ok, who do we invade next!" It's just plain nuts.


q/q

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you want to go after a whole lot of people who, by your own admission, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Let's go with that. How many nations? Let's have a list.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're part right. I wish to see the U.S., as well as the rest of civilization, hunt down terrorists wherever they are. How many nations? Stop being childish! Who said anything about having to attack nations? That's not the only solution.

[ QUOTE ]
Support for Bush and his cronies is putting real American kids into real harm's way, and saddling this whole country with generations' worth of debt.

[/ QUOTE ]
You know what the really funny part is? That those American kids overwhelmingly support Bush and their mission in Iraq AND that the majority of America's voters re-elected Bush, either in spite of Iraq or sometimes because of it!

[ QUOTE ]
And yet all I hear from the Bush crowd is "ok, who do we invade next!"

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? Because I don't hear that, but I do hear a lot of anti-Bush people saying that we say that. Interesting...

[Dead]

I think that Bush would really like to invade Iran, but unfortunately for him, we don't have enough troops who are free at the moment.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you want to go after a whole lot of people who, by your own admission, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Let's go with that. How many nations? Let's have a list.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're part right. I wish to see the U.S., as well as the rest of civilization, hunt down terrorists wherever they are. How many nations? Stop being childish! Who said anything about having to attack nations? That's not the only solution.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, an improvement about the usual conservative position, now lets go all the way BCPVP and admit the Iraq war was a mistake, because the US shouldn't attack a country just because some individuals from that country are terrorists.
Oh, wait, the 9-11 terrorists weren't even from Iraq, mmmmm well, never mind.

[Dead]

You don't understand that we can't attack Saudi Arabia. We cannot expect President Bush to drop bombs on his good friends, even if 15 of the 19 hijackers were from that country.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so you want to go after a whole lot of people who, by your own admission, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Let's go with that. How many nations? Let's have a list.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're part right. I wish to see the U.S., as well as the rest of civilization, hunt down terrorists wherever they are. How many nations? Stop being childish! Who said anything about having to attack nations? That's not the only solution.
...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, an improvement about the usual conservative position, now lets go all the way BCPVP and admit the Iraq war was a mistake, because the US shouldn't attack a country just because some individuals from that country are terrorists.
Oh, wait, the 9-11 terrorists weren't even from Iraq, mmmmm well, never mind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I might go along with you if terrorist ties were the only reason we went to war with Iraq. But it wasn't. Sorry.

And I would hope that you don't think that a person's country of origin should dictate our foreign policy.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I might go along with you if terrorist ties were the only reason we went to war with Iraq. But it wasn't. Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the previous poster commented - Wow.

The U.S. went into Iraq then - for which reason(s) exactly? (Notice that any reason given that does not involve taking out those WMDs implies that the Bush administration lied to the world and to the American people!)

- For the WMDs ? Strike 1. (Keep searchin' though. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

- To restore democracy in Iraq? Somebody please tell me the benefits of having Iraq ruled by a "popularly-elected" anti-American, with a strong Islamic bent, to boot, rather than a secular dictator?

- To improve Israel's security? I will concede that point! (How do you say "thank you, suckers" in Yiddish?)

- To grab the oil? I have no idea what's that supposed to mean. The oil was ours for the taking if we had worked through lifting the sanctions!

- To get at the terrorists behind 9/11? Strike 2. You already conceded that this was not the (only) reason. I submit that there were no ties to 9/11 whatsoever -- and I have the bi-partisan Congressional Report to back that up.

- To combat Islamic fundamentalism? Hah. Saddam was a secular bastard; it so happened he was our secular bastard. He has been replaced by a bunch of uncontrollable Shiite majority, which is ideologically closer, if anything, to America's arch-enemy (at least, ideologically) in the region, Iran.

...In case you didn't notice, slugger, you have struck out already.